A Stark reminder of why P&S image quality lags

A picture is worth 1000 words. That's a 4/3rds sensor on the right.

http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/20...asics_CA1.html

On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 00:26:12 -0500, Rich wrote:

s

Use within the particular cameras capability and the results will good.



--
neil
Reverse ‘r’ + ‘a’ and remove ‘l’.
Linux counter 335851

On 10-04-10 1:26 , Rich wrote:
A picture is worth 1000 words. That's a 4/3rds sensor on the right.

http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/20...asics_CA1.html

A FF sensor is more than 3.5 X the 4/3 in area and hence less noise
bound than 4/3.

--
gmail originated posts are filtered due to spam.

On 10-04-11 4:16 , Alfred Molon wrote:
In articlevZGdnW3pOJNaJF3WnZ2dnUVZ_sSdnZ2d@giganews. com,
says...

A FF sensor is more than 3.5 X the 4/3 in area and hence less noise
bound than 4/3.

Yes, and a medium format sensor is even bigger. Now what is your point?
Should we all switch to medium format?

The point is obvious to most, but since you're having trouble with it...

The majority of systems discussed here are direct compatible derivatives
of the 35mm system. Oly foolishly chose to develop 4/3 and paint
themselves into a noise corner v. the rest of the "35mm" crowd.

Now they are scrambling to re-define it again.

Somewhere at Oly is some poor wretch who's remembered for saying "full
frame will never be affordable."


--
gmail originated posts are filtered due to spam.

On 10-04-11 14:44 , Alfred Molon wrote:
You're assuming everybody wants to have a sensor as large as possible.
But most people are primarily concerned with portability, which is why
compact cameras are so popular. Not everybody wants to lug around a
large and heavy DSLR, and even fewer people want to carry around a FF
DSLR.

By that logic you want a camera phone.

--
gmail originated posts are filtered due to spam.

"Alan Browne" wrote in message
...
On 10-04-11 14:44 , Alfred Molon wrote:
You're assuming everybody wants to have a sensor as large as possible.
But most people are primarily concerned with portability, which is why
compact cameras are so popular. Not everybody wants to lug around a
large and heavy DSLR, and even fewer people want to carry around a FF
DSLR.

By that logic you want a camera phone.

I would like a camera the size of a compact, but with the lens reach and
ISO capabilities of a DSLR. Physics tells me that my wishes will go
unfulfilled.

David

"David J Taylor" wrote in message
...

"Alan Browne" wrote in message
...
On 10-04-11 14:44 , Alfred Molon wrote:
You're assuming everybody wants to have a sensor as large as possible.
But most people are primarily concerned with portability, which is why
compact cameras are so popular. Not everybody wants to lug around a
large and heavy DSLR, and even fewer people want to carry around a FF
DSLR.

By that logic you want a camera phone.

I would like a camera the size of a compact, but with the lens reach and
ISO capabilities of a DSLR. Physics tells me that my wishes will go
unfulfilled.

I believe it will come, but of course even if a micro-sensor just 1mm can do
the job of a full frame sensor today, then when that happens a full frame
of those1mm sensors will be better still. So size will always be important,
which is why Viagra sells so well ;-)

"Alfred Molon" wrote in message
...
In article , david-
lid says...
I would like a camera the size of a compact, but with the lens reach
and
ISO capabilities of a DSLR. Physics tells me that my wishes will go
unfulfilled.

Olympus E-PL1 perhaps? It has the same size as a compact camera.

Thanks for the suggestion, Alfred, but it won't be the same size with a
lens of the reach of my 300mm lens on a DX camera - 450mm equivalent. Nor
does it have an optical viewfinder or even an EVF.

Cheers,
David

Rich wrote:
On Apr 11, 4:19 pm, Alan Browne
wrote:
On 10-04-11 14:44 , Alfred Molon wrote:

You're assuming everybody wants to have a sensor as large as
possible. But most people are primarily concerned with portability,
which is why compact cameras are so popular. Not everybody wants to
lug around a large and heavy DSLR, and even fewer people want to
carry around a FF DSLR.

By that logic you want a camera phone.

I think we can all agree there is a basement level to quality. IMO, a
2/3"sensor with 6 megapixels, using current technology would be as
dense as I'd want to go for good, all round use, which means sometimes
going to 400-800 ISO.

I'd agree with that, but is anyone still making a camera with a 2/3" sensor?

Alan Browne wrote:
On 10-04-11 14:44 , Alfred Molon wrote:
You're assuming everybody wants to have a sensor as large as possible.
But most people are primarily concerned with portability, which is why
compact cameras are so popular. Not everybody wants to lug around a
large and heavy DSLR, and even fewer people want to carry around a FF
DSLR.

By that logic you want a camera phone.



There IS something called a happy medium.

If someone is making prints 11X14 and smaller, paying for a FF camera
and dealing with the bulk isn't required to get good results. We
understand you are proud to now own a FF camera and feel anyone who
doesn't own one is inferior to you. I'm glad buying something like this
helps you feel good about yourself Alan :-)

Stephanie